Opinion 2067 (Case 3188). Nemotois Violellus Herrich schaeffer In Stainton, 1851 Conserved By The Designation Of A Neotype For Tinea Cupriacella Huebner, 1819 (Currently Nemophora Cupriacella)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 61(1) March 2004

63

OPINION 2067 (Case 3188)

Nemotois violellus Herrich-Schaeffer in Stainton, 1851 (currently
Nemophora violella; Insecta, Lepidoptera): specific name conserved by
the designation of a neotype for Tinea cupriacella Hiibner, 1819
(currently Nemophora cupriacella )

Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the names Nemotois violellus Herrich-
Schaeffer in Stainton, 1851 and Tinea cupriacella Hiibner, 1819 are conserved by
designating a neotype for T. cupriacella.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Lepidoptera; adelidae; Nemophora ;
Nemophora violella ; Nemophora cupriacella ; fairy moths; Europe.

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary power all previous type fixations for the nominal species
Tinea cupriacella Hiibner, 1819 are hereby set aside and the female specimen:
2, POLAND: Glogow; ‘Scab, succisa, Torfwiesen, Glogau, Zeller 1/ [1 8]53’;
Stainton Coll., Brit. Mus. 1893-1 34, in The Natural History Museum, London,
is designated as the neotype.

(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology:

(a) cupriacella Hiibner, 1819, as published in the binomen Tinea cupriacella
and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above;

(b) violellus Herrich-Schaeffer in Stainton, 1851, as published in the binomen
Nemotois violellus.

History of Case 3188

An application to conserve the specific name of Nemotois violellus Herrich-
Schaeffer in Stainton, 1851 for a common and widely distributed European bisexual
fairy moth (family adelidae) associated with several Gentiana species was received
from Mikhail V. Kozlov ( University of Turku , Turku, Finland) on 24 January 2001.
The name was threatened by the senior synonym Tinea cupriacella Hiibner, 1819 that
(although originally based on a male specimen of what has long been called
Nemophora violella) for almost 150 years has been used for another (apparently
parthenogenetic) species and its suppression was proposed. After correspondence the
case was published in BZN 59: 30-33 (March 2002). The title, abstract and keywords
of the case were published on the Commission’s website. Comments opposed to the
proposal to suppress T. cupriacella were published in BZN 60: 54—58. An alternative
proposal to designate a neotype for T. cupriacella by Erik J. van Nieukerken
(. National Museum of Natural History, Naturalis, Leiden, The Netherlands ) was
published in BZN 60: 56.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 September 2003 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 59: 32 and BZN 60: 56. At the close of the voting period

64

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 61(1) March 2004

on 1 December 2003 the votes were as follows: 4 Commissioners voted FOR the
original proposals and 18 Commissioners (Alonso-Zarazaga, Bouchet, Brothers,
Calder, Evenhuis, Fortey, Kerzhner, Lamas, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli,
Ng, Nielsen, Papp, Rosenberg, Song, Stys and van Tol) voted AGAINST. Of those
who voted against, 16 voted FOR the alternative proposals, no vote was received
from Eschmeyer. Bohme and Patterson were on leave of absence.

Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:

cupriacella , Tinea , Hiibner, 1819, Sa mmlung Europdischer Schmetterlinge Lepidoptera VIII.
Tineae, pi. 67, fig. 445.

violellus , Nemotois , Herrich-Schaeffer in Stainton, 1851, Systematische Bearbeitung der
Schmetterlinge von Europa , Band 5 (Die Schaben und Federmotten). Tineides, p. 19.